It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women on the view imply we are bigots if we discuss certain facts on marriage

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I kept on thinking about the arranged marriages. It almost appears the data and studies indicate these types of matchups are more successful compared to unarranged. There are a lot of articles that support that data, here is just one (I have no idea as to the reliability of these sources):

Source


In the minds of many, arranged marriages are nothing but business arrangements. They are not seen as romantic or even honest, which makes some people have negative reaction to the very idea of an arranged marriage. The truth is, arranged marriages tend to last longer than the unarranged marriages and produce a lot of affection. How come?

The main reason arranged marriages last is because they are based on compatibility in the most important areas of life, such as beliefs, personality and life goals. Unarranged marriages, on the other hand, are often based on superficial things and do not necessarily stand the test of time.



In reality, many – some even say the most – of arranged marriages are very happy. These marriages tend to last long and are less likely to end in a divorce. People in arranged marriages often report high levels of affection and satisfaction with their married life. On the other hand, unarranged marriages are in no way a guarantee for happiness. They can produce a lot of tension and they often end in a divorce.

Here is another interesting thing: according to the experts, people in arranged marriages tend to feel more and more in love with their spouse as the time passes. This is a contrast to people in unarranged marriages, who often report to be less in love as the time goes by.


Weird huh?




posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko


Many women are attracted to men who are weaker than they are, who won't leave them and who they can dominate.


And that's your idea of a healthy relationship? She chose to settle for a lesser man because it makes her more confident he wont leave her and plus she can dominate him?


What you're not seeing here is that, in the ideal relationship, the man needs and depends on the woman just as much as she needs and depends on him. Needing someone and depending on someone is not a bad thing. It's how society functions.

But it's easy to make it sound bad when you only focus on one side...
edit on 1/6/2019 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

I just want to chime in and say I support relationships of peers the most. But I don’t think it is threatening to date a woman with a career. She brings more to the table that way! And it sounds responsible. We can share the housework and work on healthy work habits to have time for the kids. It makes her more interesting. I mean there are loads of benefits to gender equality, even for men.

In the old days, the woman became property of the man, essentially. She had to follow his rules and it was ridiculous. A marriage of equals is much less toxic.
edit on 06pmSun, 06 Jan 2019 14:26:16 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I understand why women want strong providers in a male. Most women I know want to be strong providers themselves and have a great work ethic. Why would she want someone to leech off her? I just think there is no reason a man can’t look for a woman who brings as much to the table as he does, too. You might even agree with me. So I don’t see the threat of income equality for women.
edit on 06pmSun, 06 Jan 2019 14:30:10 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I met Elizabeth and her family
once upon a time.
Really nice down to earth people
in spite of what they are surrounded by.
She no longer partakes in in the distorted
"View" of that witches coven.

Eternity is a long time.
S&F



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don’t think women want to be the new rulers of society, they just want equal pay for equal work and the same opportunities as men. They are still under-represented in leadership and underpaid compared to men.

Look at my previous post to see what I think of marriages under the new paradigm.

Also, I know a lot of women. I have dated a lot of women. As long as their husband is responsible, they are okay with it! And they are perfectly willing to date their peers. They don’t need to “date up” anymore if they can reach that status of their own volition.

Hell, loads of women I know prefer dating men of low caliber.
edit on 06pmSun, 06 Jan 2019 14:38:41 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The truth is that there are power structures within all relationships. A woman that does very well for herself has more resources available to her than other women, so why shouldn't she go for what she sees as the best options for potential mates? In our society, money is considered one of the greatest resources available. It replaces the traits of past that were necessary for survival, like physical strength, knowledge of survival itself, etc. We do still have animal instincts, and women desire powerful men.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

The ideal relationship. How do you achieve that? Would it have to start out with honest education of people/students in their earlier years.

I wish someone would have educated me on the facts of biological nature while I was still in highschool. It may have made all of the difference in the world for me. I ended up making HUGE mistakes that I only have myself to blame for. I looked in all of the wrong areas and attributes for a good mate. Maybe I just didn't know myself well enough at the time. If only I could go back in time and give myself some pointers...look at their parents and how they treat each other; pay very close attention to morals and how they treat other people; look at how they manage their finances; look and carefully gauge intelligence ... all of the things I ignored.

But at the same time, I shudder to thing what our current educational system would teach young minds.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470




And that's your idea of a healthy relationship? She chose to settle for a lesser man because it makes her more confident he wont leave her and plus she can dominate him?


Look at your popular sit-coms. The moms are hot and control their inept, bumbling husbands. They are more realistic than "Father Knows Best", "Ozzie and Harriet" or the "Donna Reed" type TV shows depicting your perfect American dream family dynamics, that never really existed.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
If I've noticed one significant & telling thing about my feminist friends (aside from the high rate of divorces under their belts) it's that they're a walking contradiction -- they don't like it when the husband/SO earns less than them as if earning less is a goal out of spite, and really get pissy when they earn more than them & start crying about inequality. As opposed to the husbands who don't care one way or the other how much the wife makes.

Honestly, the "women can do/be anything" mantra is setting impossible to maintain standards anymore & is distorting sensible outcome expectations. The other half is between a rock and a hard place, damned if they do/damned if they don't, up s# crick without a paddle, has their hands tied. There's countless more to describe "utterly F'd", but I think I made my point.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Oh yeah! The solution is, women need to start asking their employers to pay them less, and men more, so the poor, lonely incels won't do drugs and alcohol to drown their "I can't get laid" sorrows! LOL



The solution is for women not to have material gains high on the list of reasons to marry a man. Men who are financially stable are very desirable to women...even short fat ugly men...lol



Given the opportunity to support themselves, through educational opportunities and equal pay for equal work, women won't have to settle for a "less desireable" man to marry based on her own desperation and need to be taken care of. Women, and men, can choose their mates based on compatibility, rather than the ability to support the wife (ball and chain) and the kids.





But in practice, it doesnt work out that way. The successful woman STILL seeks out an even More successful man. The lady on the view said her friends do it. Shes a TV star, so I imagine she has successful friends.

It's just in her instincts. A man will choose a mate based on looks, a woman based on ability to provide happiness. If you can make her laugh in the darkest times, she may not notice right away that you arent the best with money, same if you are great in bed. But eventually she will want the freedom and safety that comes with financial responsibility. There are exceptions but this is basically how it goes.

Its not a bad thing to desire safety and security.

So, as a woman rises in the ranks, she discards every man below her as a potential mate. Her dating pool shrinks.

In other words, women aren't rescuing men from lives of poverty the way men have done for women. Women get rich and still marry richer or equal. Men will still marry a poorer woman if she has other qualities he desires, like beauty. He does this because he feels that he alone isnt good enough to deserve her beauty. But if he has something else to offer, a more comfortable life than she currently experiences, then he now has the confidence to approach her and pursue her hand in marriage.

It's easy to make this all seem very ugly when you have intentionally narrowed your perspective.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470


So, as a woman rises in the ranks, she discards every man below her as a potential mate. Her dating pool shrinks.


Somebody has been listening to Gad Saad....eh?



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

This woman ☝️ speaks the Truth!










GET HER!!!!!!!!








(so we can clone! LoL)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: 3n19m470


So, as a woman rises in the ranks, she discards every man below her as a potential mate. Her dating pool shrinks.


Somebody has been listening to Gad Saad....eh?


No, I don't know who or what that is and that thought just came to me through my own reasoning while typing my reply...



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470




A man will choose a mate based on looks, a woman based on ability to provide happiness.


What constitutes "happiness" varies from woman to woman. Financial security isn't always the attracting factor when a woman enters a romantic relationship seeking happiness. As every woman on The View agreed, they married for love and the emotional support their husbands give them.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Redneck,

I could probably agree more, but...

/end thread.





posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

Canadian evolutionary behavior science guy. The point you made is almost word for word an example he uses in lectures he's given.

Not implying you're plagiarizing or anything, to be clear. I recently listened to a podcast of his and he said almost that exact same thing, so it was hard not to make the connection.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: 3n19m470




A man will choose a mate based on looks, a woman based on ability to provide happiness.


What constitutes "happiness" varies from woman to woman. Financial security isn't always the attracting factor when a woman enters a romantic relationship seeking happiness. As every woman on The View agreed, they married for love and the emotional support their husbands give them.



Bulls#. Even a homeless couple depends on one of them finding/building & maintaining shelter and minimal food. Two starving people in the elements with NO shelter or caloric intake is going to equal either desertion or one killing the other eventually to hoist the other's survival odds.

We're a co-dependent species, on nearly every life stage level. We don't seek out a mate to just have someone make us chuckle once in a while, we do it for survival. In today's world, that translates to general stability in terms of continuing shelter and food flow. If those were off the table as prerequisites for survival of self or specie, we'd have no assurances of making it at all in the first place.
edit on 1/6/2019 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

umm ya.... sure...
here's the thing though...
women have had to endure absent nonsupporting husbands throughout history. they've had to endure abuse and marital rape. practically forced, not by nature, but men's legal systems into a life of dependency that didn't give when the man decided he didn't want to provide any longer or felt that those provisions were reason to play king of his castle and beat the hell out of the women.
so, just who created the problem? the real problem, which is that to mankind dependency always seems to equate with servitude and ownership? it's a problem we all inherited. The "traditional family" where mom stays home and cleans his castle and takes care of his little lords and ladies while he goes and earns his money and spends it as he see fit!
it didn't work out too well for many women, sorry. the only difference between then and now is that if he decides to leave her and his kids for a younger model, she can go to court and he still ends up providing somewhat for her and kiddies, if he decides to beat the hell out of her, she can press charges, and well, if they find themselves just not getting along she can file for divorce just as well has he can.
While I will agree that broken families isn't the best way to raise kids, if there is abuse within the family unit, it just may be way better than raising those kids in that kind of home! If he's drinking the grocery money down at the closest bar while she is feeding the kids peanut butter sandwiches for the fourth time in the past six days, maybe they are better off separated and him being obligated to hand some cash to her for the needs of those kids.

in plain simple words if you think that the problem is that women don't want to live a life a dependent on a man, and that she now has protections to prevent him from being a tyrant to the family, I really think you are wrong.
I think the problems are more like people from both sexes are having trouble adapting to the changes. you have some men who want to be the sole provider who can come home to a stress free life, kick off his shoes, be brought a beer, and be able to relax till that home cooked dinner is sitting on the table ready to eat. And, you have women who want to be that dependent wife who is willing to do those things for their husband. but then, you have an economy that often times prevents any of that from being feasible. and, you have men and women who really would rather it be an equal partnership in every way.
then there's the second problem, it seems that we have many more selfish, greedy, me me me people (of both sexes) who just want everything to be the way they want them and who cares what their partner wants!!! but, then, maybe we always had people like that only the culture granted the last word on all things to the husband.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
I think the problems are more like people from both sexes are having trouble adapting to the changes. you have some men who want to be the sole provider who can come home to a stress free life, kick off his shoes, be brought a beer, and be able to relax till that home cooked dinner is sitting on the table ready to eat. And, you have women who want to be that dependent wife who is willing to do those things for their husband. but then, you have an economy that often times prevents any of that from being feasible. and, you have men and women who really would rather it be an equal partnership in every way.
then there's the second problem, it seems that we have many more selfish, greedy, me me me people (of both sexes) who just want everything to be the way they want them and who cares what their partner wants!!! but, then, maybe we always had people like that only the culture granted the last word on all things to the husband.


And who's fault is that. Dawn? If you know damn well your potential husband wants a hausfrau and you don't want to be one, who's fault is it for signing on the dotted line in the first place?

You're supposed to have enough brain cells upstairs to say "Hey, Bob, I know what kind of woman you want, and I ain't her" and much as Bob's supposed to say "Listen Martha, I don't want a career wife, I want a home warrior. If you can't be that, bye now."







 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join